Define a Lance fan please.......
Comments
-
Just want to point out Jan is not fat in that picture he is just breathing properly in an extremely tight skin suit, you can find similar pics of Lance, Millar etc.
Does it matter if Lance doped? I don't like the guy, assume he doped, didn't really like his book and am not keen on his comback, but will give him the dues that he was one of the great TDF GC riders.
One thought on his comeback why didn't he target other races except the TDF, specifically make it his aim to win say P-R, Amstel etc. which would then balance up his plamares with some of the true greats. Shame opportunity missed. I do wonder about his scary obsession with the TDF that this comeback seems to confirm, get over it, it is only another stupid in the whole scheme of things bike race.0 -
dennisn wrote:I just don't understand why a person who wants to race again can't do so. Maybe he "got
bitten by the bug" again. Is that so hard to understand? What's wrong with him just wanting to race? Oh wait, I know why. Because if it doesn't have all the aspects of
a good "soap opera" or some sort of "conspiracy theory" most of the naysayers just aren't interested. Just plain old racing isn't exciting enough for them. They seem to want to know all the "dirt". It almost seems to me that want all this doping to satisfy some weird craving that they have. Or is it because they are nowhere near as good as pro riders and this hurts there pride so in order to feel better about themselves they kind
of adopt an attitude of "I could be that good IF I doped" and then tell everyone that this
or that rider is only better than myself because he's a doper. Trust me on this one guys.
Most of you couldn't keep up with a Lance or Ivan or Alberto if you took all the drugs in the world and they were squeaky clean. You're just not that good. You do however, know just about everything about all of these riders (or so you claim).
Dennis Noward
Don't understand that post you seem to advocate blood doping and dopers because they are better than most riders when clean. Plain old racing as you say is the cleaner way of racing. If you take a keen interest in performance and sports you will understand what goes in cycling and many other sports.0 -
NJK wrote:dennisn wrote:I just don't understand why a person who wants to race again can't do so. Maybe he "got
bitten by the bug" again. Is that so hard to understand? What's wrong with him just wanting to race? Oh wait, I know why. Because if it doesn't have all the aspects of
a good "soap opera" or some sort of "conspiracy theory" most of the naysayers just aren't interested. Just plain old racing isn't exciting enough for them. They seem to want to know all the "dirt". It almost seems to me that want all this doping to satisfy some weird craving that they have. Or is it because they are nowhere near as good as pro riders and this hurts there pride so in order to feel better about themselves they kind
of adopt an attitude of "I could be that good IF I doped" and then tell everyone that this
or that rider is only better than myself because he's a doper. Trust me on this one guys.
Most of you couldn't keep up with a Lance or Ivan or Alberto if you took all the drugs in the world and they were squeaky clean. You're just not that good. You do however, know just about everything about all of these riders (or so you claim).
Dennis Noward
Don't understand that post you seem to advocate blood doping and dopers because they are better than most riders when clean. Plain old racing as you say is the cleaner way of racing. If you take a keen interest in performance and sports you will understand what goes in cycling and many other sports.
To be honest I'm not advocating anything other than people keeping their mouths shut
when they don't know what they are talking about. I doubt any of these people would
recognize a steroid if it "jumped out and bit them" yet they all claim to "know" all about
who takes them and who doesn't, who's taking secret, undetectable drugs, who's not.
Everyone of them has read a hundred books on the subject, thereby becoming experts.
They remind me of the people who read a book like "The Da vinci Code" and come away
thinking that it's true and then try to convince others that it's true. It's a work of fiction
yet their minds can't, for whatever reason, accept the fact that it's just a story.
Dennis Noward0 -
They remind me of the people who read a book like "The Da vinci Code" and come away
thinking that it's true and then try to convince others that it's true. It's a work of fiction
yet their minds can't, for whatever reason, accept the fact that it's just a story.
that's exactly how I feel about the people who think that Armstrong wasn't a doper.0 -
One, at the time of his comeback there was no test for Epo, the then drug of choice for the pro cyclist.Amos wrote:Not knowing a lot about LA, how did he manage to never get caught doping?
Two, when a test for Epo was developed Armstrong `allegedly` moved on to using autologous blood doping, which was undetectable right through the Armstrong era. See:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
Three, he was well protected by Hein Verbruggen and the UCI, who both accepted a pre-dated TUE when he tested positive for corticoids and went out of their way to discredit the LNDD when retrospective testing on 6 of his samples from the 1999 Tour showed positive for Epo.
Four, there are many methods that can be used to mask doping or cheat the tests, including good old urine substitution. (During the SCA hearing one expert testified that the samples supplied for testing as part of the French investigation in the wake of the 1999 Epo `positives` and which were supposedly taken from Armstrong and his team mates during the 2000 Tour were far to clear to have come from a cyclist who had just ridden a stage of the Tour).
Five, many products are still untraceable by dope tests:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/05072007/ ... tests.html
http://www.bicycle.net/2008/doping-expe ... -de-france
Six, given the cost of doping and the limited size of the sample they have available testing labs can only test for a fraction of the possible doping products. As with the case of Landis the more definitive tests may only be done when simpler and cheaper tests have already given cause for suspicion. Given this even a rider doped doped to gills might simply get lucky.
Seven, many doping products only remain in the system for a short time, so a rider can dope in the run up to a race and benefit from the effects in the event without ever running the risk of testing positive. Epo is only detectable for 4 days...
As to what defines an Armstrong fan. I would say an Armstrong fan is merely someone who has never bothered to read all the available evidence relating to the doping `allegations` against him, or who couldn`t care less how he achieved his `wins`.0 -
singlespeedexplosif wrote:They remind me of the people who read a book like "The Da vinci Code" and come away
thinking that it's true and then try to convince others that it's true. It's a work of fiction
yet their minds can't, for whatever reason, accept the fact that it's just a story.
that's exactly how I feel about the people who think that Armstrong wasn't a doper.
Oh yeah, well, well, my dad can beat up your dad.
Dennis Noward0 -
aurelio wrote:
One, at the time of his comeback there was no test for Epo, the then drug of choice for the pro cyclist.Amos wrote:Not knowing a lot about LA, how did he manage to never get caught doping?
Two, when a test for Epo was developed Armstrong `allegedly` moved on to using autologous blood doping, which was undetectable right through the Armstrong era. See:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
Three, he was well protected by Hein Verbruggen and the UCI, who both accepted a pre-dated TUE when he tested positive for corticoids and went out of their way to discredit the LNDD when retrospective testing on 6 of his samples from the 1999 Tour showed positive for Epo.
Four, there are many methods that can be used to mask doping or cheat the tests, including good old urine substitution. (During the SCA hearing one expert testified that the samples supplied for testing as part of the French investigation in the wake of the 1999 Epo `positives` and which were supposedly taken from Armstrong and his team mates during the 2000 Tour were far to clear to have come from a cyclist who had just ridden a stage of the Tour).
Five, many products are still untraceable by dope tests:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/05072007/ ... tests.html
http://www.bicycle.net/2008/doping-expe ... -de-france
Six, given the cost of doping and the limited size of the sample they have available testing labs can only test for a fraction of the possible doping products. As with the case of Landis the more definitive tests may only be done when simpler and cheaper tests have already given cause for suspicion. Given this even a rider doped doped to gills might simply get lucky.
Seven, many doping products only remain in the system for a short time, so a rider can dope in the run up to a race and benefit from the effects in the event without ever running the risk of testing positive. Epo is only detectable for 4 days...
As to what defines an Armstrong fan. I would say an Armstrong fan is merely someone who has never bothered to read all the available evidence relating to the doping `allegations` against him, or who couldn`t care less how he achieved his `wins`.
Yep youre bang on the money with the word ALLEGATiONS Basically to sum all that up no concrete evidence at all then, just pure supposition and speculation. Come on you need to better than that.
cheers
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
aurelio wrote:
One, at the time of his comeback there was no test for Epo, the then drug of choice for the pro cyclist.Amos wrote:Not knowing a lot about LA, how did he manage to never get caught doping?
Two, when a test for Epo was developed Armstrong `allegedly` moved on to using autologous blood doping, which was undetectable right through the Armstrong era. See:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
Three, he was well protected by Hein Verbruggen and the UCI, who both accepted a pre-dated TUE when he tested positive for corticoids and went out of their way to discredit the LNDD when retrospective testing on 6 of his samples from the 1999 Tour showed positive for Epo.
Four, there are many methods that can be used to mask doping or cheat the tests, including good old urine substitution. (During the SCA hearing one expert testified that the samples supplied for testing as part of the French investigation in the wake of the 1999 Epo `positives` and which were supposedly taken from Armstrong and his team mates during the 2000 Tour were far to clear to have come from a cyclist who had just ridden a stage of the Tour).
Five, many products are still untraceable by dope tests:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/05072007/ ... tests.html
http://www.bicycle.net/2008/doping-expe ... -de-france
Six, given the cost of doping and the limited size of the sample they have available testing labs can only test for a fraction of the possible doping products. As with the case of Landis the more definitive tests may only be done when simpler and cheaper tests have already given cause for suspicion. Given this even a rider doped doped to gills might simply get lucky.
Seven, many doping products only remain in the system for a short time, so a rider can dope in the run up to a race and benefit from the effects in the event without ever running the risk of testing positive. Epo is only detectable for 4 days...
As to what defines an Armstrong fan. I would say an Armstrong fan is merely someone who has never bothered to read all the available evidence relating to the doping `allegations` against him, or who couldn`t care less how he achieved his `wins`.
I love the "untraceable" stuff. If you can't prove anything then that means it still happened
and was some "untraceable" secret formula from the secret labs of some "Dr. Frankenstein"
and his assistant "Igor". I can see that happening. Make a great movie.
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:Amos wrote:Not knowing a lot about LA, how did `.
I love the "untraceable" stuff. If you can't prove anything then that means it still happened
and was some "untraceable" secret formula from the secret labs of some "Dr. Frankenstein"
and his assistant "Igor". I can see that happening. Make a great movie.
Dennis Noward
Yea i get a laugh at that myself if you cant produce evidence just say it happened even though there is no evidence to say so.
cheers
MGGasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Oh yeah, well, well, my dad can beat up your dad. Wink Wink
that's because your dad is a doper. Mine is a figurehead for truth and justice and mom's apple pie 0 -
andyp wrote:
It's a shame you don't heed your own advice on occasions.dennisn wrote:To be honest I'm not advocating anything other than people keeping their mouths shut
when they don't know what they are talking about.
I don't claim to know anything except that all this talk is, at best, simply speculation
and is, at worst, vicious slander.
Dennis Noward0 -
Eh? I was just listing a few of the ways in which a rider like Armstrong can manage to evade positive dope tests, even if they are doping. The actual evidence against Armstrong has been discussed many times on this forum, not that many people seem to have bothered to read it!Moray Gub wrote:Basically to sum all that up no concrete evidence at all then, just pure supposition and speculation. Come on you need to better than that.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Eh? I was just listing a few of the ways in which a rider like Armstrong can manage to evade positive dope tests, even if they are doping. The actual evidence against Armstrong has been discussed many times on this forum, not that many people seem to have bothered to read it!Moray Gub wrote:Basically to sum all that up no concrete evidence at all then, just pure supposition and speculation. Come on you need to better than that.
So, because it's possible to evade positive dope tests this proves that whomever YOU say is doping, is doping. That seems fair. :roll: :roll: If I say you're an idiot and you evade
me when I try to prove it, this is proof of you being one????
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:
Eh? I was just listing a few of the ways in which a rider like Armstrong can manage to evade positive dope tests, even if they are doping. The actual evidence against Armstrong has been discussed many times on this forum, not that many people seem to have bothered to read it!Moray Gub wrote:Basically to sum all that up no concrete evidence at all then, just pure supposition and speculation. Come on you need to better than that.
So, because it's possible to evade positive dope tests this proves that whomever YOU say is doping, is doping. That seems fair. :roll: :roll: If I say you're an idiot and you evade
me when I try to prove it, this is proof of you being one????
Dennis Noward
I think what you have to do Dennis is to state why you believe that everyone contacted with Armstrong in the past is lying and why you believe that he was clean even though i don't think you really do, given that all GC contenders have been implicated. I was going to say that he has never been linked to a dodgy doctor but i would be telling porkies. Explain to me how Heras, Hincapie, Hamilton were all juiced up and he was morally above it all even though his urge to win is far greater.0 -
NJK wrote:dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:
Eh? I was just listing a few of the ways in which a rider like Armstrong can manage to evade positive dope tests, even if they are doping. The actual evidence against Armstrong has been discussed many times on this forum, not that many people seem to have bothered to read it!Moray Gub wrote:Basically to sum all that up no concrete evidence at all then, just pure supposition and speculation. Come on you need to better than that.
So, because it's possible to evade positive dope tests this proves that whomever YOU say is doping, is doping. That seems fair. :roll: :roll: If I say you're an idiot and you evade
me when I try to prove it, this is proof of you being one????
Dennis Noward
I think what you have to do Dennis is to state why you believe that everyone contacted with Armstrong in the past is lying and why you believe that he was clean even though i don't think you really do, given that all GC contenders have been implicated. I was going to say that he has never been linked to a dodgy doctor but i would be telling porkies. Explain to me how Heras, Hincapie, Hamilton were all juiced up and he was morally above it all even though his urge to win is far greater.
No way. People don't have to prove they are innocent. It's up to you to prove guilt. I
never said I believed anything or anyone. Lots of people basically slandering some bike
riders about something that has never been proven. I've got an idea though. How about we torture these guys until they "confess". Then we will know the truth. It worked in the middle ages and it works today. Maybe Lance is actually a witch or demon in disguise
and his undetectable drugs are actually magic potions. Now we're getting somewhere!!!
Wait, sold his soul to the devil. Yea, that's it.
Dennis Noward0 -
No! I pointed out a few of the ways riders in general can dope and yet never test positive, plus a few additional facts about Armstrong`s testing history, as in the way the UCI responded to his positive for corticoids and those 6 retrospective `positives` for Epo. Even here similar parallels exist for other riders, as in the way Verbruggen / the UCI accepted a pre-dated TUE for Laurent Brochard when he tested positive for lidocaine when he `won` the world RR championships.dennisn wrote:So, because it's possible to evade positive dope tests this proves that whomever YOU say is doping, is doping. That seems fair...
The points I made do not, in themselves, `prove` Armstrong doped but they do absolutely disprove the claim that Armstrong could never have doped because he `never tested positive`. (A claim which is not strictly speaking true in any case).
The required, WADA stipulated, `comfortable satisfaction` level of proof needed to say that Armstrong doped has been provided by all those ex team mates and support staff of Armstrong who said he doped, the experts who have debunked all the myths circulated in order to promote `The Armstrong Myth`, those 6 retrospective Epo `positives` and a whole raft of `circumstantial` evidence ranging from his association with Ferrari through to his dedication in bullying those who broke the `omerta` relating to doping in cycling. (And plenty of people have been convicted of criminal charges on much less circumstantial and witness testimony than stands against Armstrong).0 -
dennisn wrote:NJK wrote:dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:
Eh? I was just listing a few of the ways in which a rider like Armstrong can manage to evade positive dope tests, even if they are doping. The actual evidence against Armstrong has been discussed many times on this forum, not that many people seem to have bothered to read it!Moray Gub wrote:Basically to sum all that up no concrete evidence at all then, just pure supposition and speculation. Come on you need to better than that.
So, because it's possible to evade positive dope tests this proves that whomever YOU say is doping, is doping. That seems fair. :roll: :roll: If I say you're an idiot and you evade
me when I try to prove it, this is proof of you being one????
Dennis Noward
I think what you have to do Dennis is to state why you believe that everyone contacted with Armstrong in the past is lying and why you believe that he was clean even though i don't think you really do, given that all GC contenders have been implicated. I was going to say that he has never been linked to a dodgy doctor but i would be telling porkies. Explain to me how Heras, Hincapie, Hamilton were all juiced up and he was morally above it all even though his urge to win is far greater.
No way. People don't have to prove they are innocent. It's up to you to prove guilt. I
never said I believed anything or anyone. Lots of people basically slandering some bike
riders about something that has never been proven. I've got an idea though. How about we torture these guys until they "confess". Then we will know the truth. It worked in the middle ages and it works today. Maybe Lance is actually a witch or demon in disguise
and his undetectable drugs are actually magic potions. Now we're getting somewhere!!!
Wait, sold his soul to the devil. Yea, that's it.
Dennis Noward
Do you think he cheated? His undetectable drugs were probably the same as the chicken, undectable calves blood i believe. Everyone knew he was cheating because his performance significantly improved in 2 years, you can tell without drug testing. Ricco was the same even if he hadn't been caught i knew he was on something, he was climbing like Pantani , Contador & Armstrong. The human body can only do so much and only go so quick.0 -
NJK wrote:dennisn wrote:NJK wrote:dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:
Eh? I was just listing a few of the ways in which a rider like Armstrong can manage to evade positive dope tests, even if they are doping. The actual evidence against Armstrong has been discussed many times on this forum, not that many people seem to have bothered to read it!Moray Gub wrote:Basically to sum all that up no concrete evidence at all then, just pure supposition and speculation. Come on you need to better than that.
So, because it's possible to evade positive dope tests this proves that whomever YOU say is doping, is doping. That seems fair. :roll: :roll: If I say you're an idiot and you evade
me when I try to prove it, this is proof of you being one????
Dennis Noward
I think what you have to do Dennis is to state why you believe that everyone contacted with Armstrong in the past is lying and why you believe that he was clean even though i don't think you really do, given that all GC contenders have been implicated. I was going to say that he has never been linked to a dodgy doctor but i would be telling porkies. Explain to me how Heras, Hincapie, Hamilton were all juiced up and he was morally above it all even though his urge to win is far greater.
No way. People don't have to prove they are innocent. It's up to you to prove guilt. I
never said I believed anything or anyone. Lots of people basically slandering some bike
riders about something that has never been proven. I've got an idea though. How about we torture these guys until they "confess". Then we will know the truth. It worked in the middle ages and it works today. Maybe Lance is actually a witch or demon in disguise
and his undetectable drugs are actually magic potions. Now we're getting somewhere!!!
Wait, sold his soul to the devil. Yea, that's it.
Dennis Noward
Do you think he cheated? His undetectable drugs were probably the same as the chicken, undectable calves blood i believe. Everyone knew he was cheating because his performance significantly improved in 2 years, you can tell without drug testing. Ricco was the same even if he hadn't been caught i knew he was on something, he was climbing like Pantani , Contador & Armstrong. The human body can only do so much and only go so quick.
Once again, in capital letters, PROVE IT. YOU KNOW ALL ABOUT IT, PROVE IT.
Let me clarify something for everyone. I don't care if he / they "did or didn't". It's the fact that you've convicted a man on hearsay evidence at best. Who made all of you so "godlike". Sorry, that's probably a bit much, but I'll let it stand.
Dennis Noward0 -
:roll: :roll: :roll:dennisn wrote:[People don't have to prove they are innocent. It's up to you to prove guilt... How about we torture these guys until they "confess". Then we will know the truth. It worked in the middle ages and it works today. Maybe Lance is actually a witch or demon in disguise and his undetectable drugs are actually magic potions. Now we're getting somewhere!!! Wait, sold his soul to the devil. Yea, that's it.
...On the other hand we could do as they do in a modern court and consider the statements of all those involved and any possible motivations they might have for making the claims they do, the strength of the physical evidence which exists (as with those 6 retrospective positives for Epo), and the strength of the case put forward for the defence. (Unfortunately for Armstrong, much like Landis, the smokescreen of claims put out in his defence might well be taken as being on of the biggest `proofs` of his guilt, especially given the way almost every claim has been comprehensively debunked). After doing this all that needs to be considered is whether the claim Armstrong doped is proven to the level of `comfortable satisfaction` as demanded by WADA.
Then again, I am an old-fashioned rationalist, and I do realise that in the US it is widely believed that each individual is free to construct their own version of reality and that the official `truth` is, quite literally, whatever a team of highly-paid lawyers can manage to dream up!0 -
dennisn wrote:NJK wrote:dennisn wrote:NJK wrote:dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:
Eh? I was just listing a few of the ways in which a rider like Armstrong can manage to evade positive dope tests, even if they are doping. The actual evidence against Armstrong has been discussed many times on this forum, not that many people seem to have bothered to read it!Moray Gub wrote:Basically to sum all that up no concrete evidence at all then, just pure supposition and speculation. Come on you need to better than that.
So, because it's possible to evade positive dope tests this proves that whomever YOU say is doping, is doping. That seems fair. :roll: :roll: If I say you're an idiot and you evade
me when I try to prove it, this is proof of you being one????
Dennis Noward
I think what you have to do Dennis is to state why you believe that everyone contacted with Armstrong in the past is lying and why you believe that he was clean even though i don't think you really do, given that all GC contenders have been implicated. I was going to say that he has never been linked to a dodgy doctor but i would be telling porkies. Explain to me how Heras, Hincapie, Hamilton were all juiced up and he was morally above it all even though his urge to win is far greater.
No way. People don't have to prove they are innocent. It's up to you to prove guilt. I
never said I believed anything or anyone. Lots of people basically slandering some bike
riders about something that has never been proven. I've got an idea though. How about we torture these guys until they "confess". Then we will know the truth. It worked in the middle ages and it works today. Maybe Lance is actually a witch or demon in disguise
and his undetectable drugs are actually magic potions. Now we're getting somewhere!!!
Wait, sold his soul to the devil. Yea, that's it.
Dennis Noward
Do you think he cheated? His undetectable drugs were probably the same as the chicken, undectable calves blood i believe. Everyone knew he was cheating because his performance significantly improved in 2 years, you can tell without drug testing. Ricco was the same even if he hadn't been caught i knew he was on something, he was climbing like Pantani , Contador & Armstrong. The human body can only do so much and only go so quick.
Once again, in capital letters, PROVE IT. YOU KNOW ALL ABOUT IT, PROVE IT.
Let me clarify something for everyone. I don't care if he / they "did or didn't". It's the fact that you've convicted a man on hearsay evidence at best. Who made all of you so "godlike". Sorry, that's probably a bit much, but I'll let it stand.
Dennis Noward
Hear say not me. I've seen him, Pantani and all the others in the flesh. You can't ride your bike that quick day in day out, simple i know, thats my evidence. Performance will always be the best indicator. When people ask for faster, higher, further, drugs will never be far away.0 -
aurelio wrote:
:roll: :roll: :roll:dennisn wrote:[People don't have to prove they are innocent. It's up to you to prove guilt... How about we torture these guys until they "confess". Then we will know the truth. It worked in the middle ages and it works today. Maybe Lance is actually a witch or demon in disguise and his undetectable drugs are actually magic potions. Now we're getting somewhere!!! Wait, sold his soul to the devil. Yea, that's it.
...On the other hand we could do as they do in a modern court and consider the statements of all those involved and any possible motivations they might have for making the claims they do, the strength of the physical evidence which exists (as with those 6 retrospective positives for Epo), and the strength of the case put forward for the defence. (Unfortunately for Armstrong, much like Landis, the smokescreen of claims put out in his defence might well be taken as being on of the biggest `proofs` of his guilt, especially given the way almost every claim has been comprehensively debunked). After doing this all that needs to be considered is whether the claim Armstrong doped is proven to the level of `comfortable satisfaction` as demanded by WADA.
Then again, I am an old-fashioned rationalist, and I do realise that in the US it is widely believed that each individual is free to construct their own version of reality and that the official `truth` is, quite literally, whatever a team of highly-paid lawyers can manage to dream up!
All I can say is that I hope you don't get a jury of people
who think like you if you're ever in court. You'll get life for a traffic violation.
Dennis Noward0 -
You really have no idea as to how the legal system works do you? Juries only decide on the verdict, the sentence is decided by the judge acting within the limits set by the law.dennisn wrote:All I can say is that I hope you don't get a jury of people who think like you if you're ever in court. You'll get life for a traffic violation.
I would be quite happy to be tried by a jury of people who think like me. However, having studied the criminal justice system as part of my degree and having sat on a jury in a serious criminal case, I rather fear I would not be so lucky.
As to what `sentence` Armstrong should get the day his doping is proved to a level acceptable even to the likes of you, I would say an asterix next to his name in the list of Tour `winners` would suffice.0 -
aurelio wrote:
You really have no idea as to how the legal system works do you? Juries only decide on the verdict, the sentence is decided by the judge acting within the limits set by the law.dennisn wrote:All I can say is that I hope you don't get a jury of people who think like you if you're ever in court. You'll get life for a traffic violation.
I would be quite happy to be tried by a jury of people who think like me. However, having studied the criminal justice system as part of my degree and having sat on a jury in a serious criminal case, I rather fear I would not be so lucky.
As to what `sentence` Armstrong should get the day his doping is proved to a level acceptable even to the likes of you, I would say an asterix next to his name in the list of Tour `winners` would suffice.
For god's sake. Someone help me. I could care less who has doped and who hasn't.
I'm objecting the people who are willing to "convict" a person on hearsay evidence. Not
to mention all the people who "know" all about these "dopers" and seem more than willing to write in and slander(for lack of a better word) them. And just to let you know, I have been on a jury and it seems that the judge told us that truth and proof
needed to be part of our judgement and we were to draw no conculsions if the defendant chose to remain silent. That's what is so weird about all this. Lance has not
confessed - therefore he is guilty. Or something along those lines.
Dennis Noward0 -
DennisN
You need to chill out man. Open up your eyes and acknowledge that there is no smoke without fire. All of these allegations against Lance aren't just made up stories. The evidence is compelling.0 -
eh wrote:One thought on his comeback why didn't he target other races except the TDF, specifically make it his aim to win say P-R, Amstel etc. which would then balance up his plamares with some of the true greats. Shame opportunity missed. I do wonder about his scary obsession with the TDF that this comeback seems to confirm, get over it, it is only another stupid in the whole scheme of things bike race.
I've never understand this obsession that somehow because he didn't ride the classics he's not got a record to be considered. If I were planning the list of races to do "global awareness" P-R and Amstel would be fair way down my list. Much as they are great races and beloved of cycling fans, they're just that: cycle races for cycling fans. They're not a 3 week window to the world broadcast in just about every territory with television which transcends the actual sport in the same way that the World Cup football and Olympics do. Think of the TDF like the Monaco GP: It's the same thing but utterly different.0 -
hear hear its gettin extremely f**kin boring now about as intresting as politics & trainspotting :?redddraggon wrote:I think a lot of the Lance fan boys just show a little naivety and try to make out he's the greatest cyclist ever/a saviour for the world/the next messiah/a guy who is totally selfless/want his babies/etc
I just think the extreme haters wind up the Lance lovers and vice versa.........but it's all boring now.cheesy quaver0 -
wasp707 wrote:DennisN
You need to chill out man. Open up your eyes and acknowledge that there is no smoke without fire. All of these allegations against Lance aren't just made up stories. The evidence is compelling.
I"m going to pull a George Bush. Read my lips - PROVE IT. And by the way, even if you could I wouldn't care. That's not what matters. What matters is slandering people with
claims you cannot even come close to proving. Stop that and then I'll chill.
Dennis Noward0 -
Sorry, Leguapae, got to stop you there - if the idea of 'globalising' the 'awareness' of cancer campaign is to, um, 'globalise the awareness of cancer' then what is to be gained by racing 2 of your comeback races in the US (awareness of cancer and LAF v high) and 3 in France - countries where awareness of LA is already v high. What are you saying? That globalisation doesn't extend beyond those countries? Or shouldn't? Or that the the Dutch aren't global enough? Aren't worthy of having their 'cancer awareness raised'? Or perhaps - god forbid - they actually know what cancer is already?
What's that you say? They're just cycle races for cycling fans? But I thought the whole point of Armstrong's comeback was to raise the profile of cycling globally - as a clean sport. So what must I think now? That P-R and Amstel aren't clean? Or aren't actually cycle races? Please advise.0 -
NJK wrote:Hear say not me. I've seen him, Pantani and all the others in the flesh. You can't ride your bike that quick day in day out, simple i know, thats my evidence. Performance will always be the best indicator. When people ask for faster, higher, further, drugs will never be far away.
Oh alright then, I'll just pop the bike in the skip tomorrow morning as I have no intention of just playing around with the sport. I'll drown my sorrows in the pub and then perk up the next day and realise that there are still things in life, in other areas, that I can achieve.0
